If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Smartwings Flies SMI-PRG on Single Engine.

Flight QS-1125 lost the #1 engine shortly after reaching FL360, but then drifted down to FL240 and continued on to their destination for another 2h 20mins. There was no report of the engine loss to ATC, just a 'technical failure'.

On Aug 24th 2019 the airline stated: "The crew proceeded in accordance with the safety and operational procedures for these cases..."

Do we have any residet european pilot? Doesn't JAR / EASA have an equvalent to 14 CFR 121.565 (Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting), 91.3 (Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command) and 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation)???

Because if there is something that calls my attention than the PIC (who seems is the Airline's Director of Operations and Chief Pilot) deciding to continue 2:20 to the destination in a twin with one engine failed while overflying many perfectly suitable much nearer aerodromes, is the statement from the airline saying "The crew proceeded in accordance with the safety and operational procedures for these cases and the aircraft landed safely. The commander is one of the most experienced in the company, the crew was in control of the situation and certainly would not underestimate anything."

And if there is something that call my attention more than the statement of the airline, is the statement alleged to EASA saying "There is no absolute requirement that in circumstances such as those experienced by Smartwings flight QS1125, the aircraft must divert to the nearest suitable aerodrome. This is partly due to the large number of variables that need to be taken into account when identifying what would be a “suitable” aerodrome in any particular case (e.g. precise state of the aircraft, available and equipped nearby airport, weather conditions in the flight area and in the location of the nearby aerodrome etc.). The decision is therefore taken by the pilot in command of the aircraft, factoring in also the operator’s operation manual. The decision on which airfield is suitable may vary from one pilot or operator to the other, without this constituting a safety violation.”

What's left? Ban Europe?

And the cherry of the cake, the internal memo from the airline, who seems more concern about their image and what their employees do in social media than about safety and what their employees do in the cockpit of a revenue flight.
"We'd like to inform you that the flight is being subject to internal investigation by the Smartwings company that is collecting data and evaluating the operations of the aircrew. Measures will be taken based on the results of the investigation and the workers concerned will be informed about these. Smartwings has been co-operating with aviation authorities (ÚCL, ÚZPLN). In its media release on Tuesday, Aug. 27, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has confirmed the standpoint of our company that it is up to the pilot in command to decide which airport is suitable for landing. "

--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

Do we have any residet european pilot? Doesn't JAR / EASA have an equvalent to 14 CFR 121.565 (Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting), 91.3 (Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command) and 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation)???

Because if there is something that calls my attention than the PIC (who seems is the Airline's Director of Operations and Chief Pilot) deciding to continue 2:20 to the destination in a twin with one engine failed while overflying many perfectly suitable much nearer aerodromes, is the statement from the airline saying "The crew proceeded in accordance with the safety and operational procedures for these cases and the aircraft landed safely. The commander is one of the most experienced in the company, the crew was in control of the situation and certainly would not underestimate anything."

And if there is something that call my attention more than the statement of the airline, is the statement alleged to EASA saying "There is no absolute requirement that in circumstances such as those experienced by Smartwings flight QS1125, the aircraft must divert to the nearest suitable aerodrome. This is partly due to the large number of variables that need to be taken into account when identifying what would be a “suitable” aerodrome in any particular case (e.g. precise state of the aircraft, available and equipped nearby airport, weather conditions in the flight area and in the location of the nearby aerodrome etc.). The decision is therefore taken by the pilot in command of the aircraft, factoring in also the operator’s operation manual. The decision on which airfield is suitable may vary from one pilot or operator to the other, without this constituting a safety violation.”

What's left? Ban Europe?

And the cherry of the cake, the internal memo from the airline, who seems more concern about their image and what their employees do in social media than about safety and what their employees do in the cockpit of a revenue flight.
"We'd like to inform you that the flight is being subject to internal investigation by the Smartwings company that is collecting data and evaluating the operations of the aircrew. Measures will be taken based on the results of the investigation and the workers concerned will be informed about these. Smartwings has been co-operating with aviation authorities (ÚCL, ÚZPLN). In its media release on Tuesday, Aug. 27, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has confirmed the standpoint of our company that it is up to the pilot in command to decide which airport is suitable for landing. "

Clearly, from the statement issued by Smartwings, the safety culture is missing. Clearly, they are on my no-fly list until they condemn this incident. No commercial transport aircraft can be dispatched for revenue service on one engine, thus it cannot continue on one if an alternate is closer. Loss of powerplant redundancy = end of flight, asap.

I seriously wonder if these pilots understand ETOP's. The NG is ETOPS 180, but that doesn't mean you can fly 180 if an alternate is 25.

And if there is something that call my attention more than the statement of the airline, is the statement alleged to EASA saying "There is no absolute requirement that in circumstances such as those experienced by Smartwings flight QS1125, the aircraft must divert to the nearest suitable aerodrome. This is partly due to the large number of variables that need to be taken into account when identifying what would be a “suitable” aerodrome in any particular case (e.g. precise state of the aircraft, available and equipped nearby airport, weather conditions in the flight area and in the location of the nearby aerodrome etc.). The decision is therefore taken by the pilot in command of the aircraft, factoring in also the operator’s operation manual. The decision on which airfield is suitable may vary from one pilot or operator to the other, without this constituting a safety violation.”

I think the summary of that statement is: Land asap unless circumstances make it safer to continue. Definitely not the case here.

I guess if their destination had far superior approaches, runways, rescue and medical facilities versus their origin, or somewhere else along the way, it might be a reasonable call...

They don't need to be superior, they just need to be adequate. The decision should be to land asap UNLESS it is less safe to do so. Since you are now in a situation where a single-engine failure will result in total loss of power, continuing would require serious inadequacies at any of your possible alternates. That wasn't the case.

The following applies to the USA, that's why I was asking if there is anything equivalent in the JAR / EASA, because I could not find it:

§ 121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or is shut down to prevent possible damage, the pilot-in-command may proceed to an airport that the pilot selects if, after considering the following, the pilot makes a reasonable decision that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.

(2) The altitude, weight, and useable fuel at the time that the engine is shutdown.

(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.

(4) The air traffic congestion.

(5) The kind of terrain.

(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

(c) The pilot-in-command must report each engine shutdown in flight to the appropriate communication facility as soon as practicable and must keep that facility fully informed of the progress of the flight.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the responsible Flight Standards office.

(b) doesn't apply because it is for airplanes with more than 2 engines, but it gives you an idea of all the things the crew needs to take into account before deciding to continue on 2 or 3 engines.

(a) and (c) were absolutely violated.

I would like to see the report that they would write to comply with (d).

That is, again, if that was USA, which it wasn't.

--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

I’ll take a 2.3 hour ride if things are MARGINALLY adequate...Any sort of challenging approach or go-around requirements, limited rescue capabilities and a place that has easy approaches, go-arounds, or decent fire and rescue becomes FAR superior.

I’ll take a 2.3 hour ride if things are MARGINALLY adequate...Any sort of challenging approach or go-around requirements, limited rescue capabilities and a place that has easy approaches, go-arounds, or decent fire and rescue becomes FAR superior.

It's pretty black and white, 3WE. You're down to the last engine, you land asap. The only room for gray that I can imagine is if none of the closest alternates are considered a safe option, if landing there, shall we say, impacts the 'safety of the flight'. Then, you find the nearest one that doesn't. You don't brush it off and go another 2h 20min to your intended destination. Sure, losing the remaining engine is a very remote possibility, but it is still a significant possibility (I assume we don't have to re-argue the meaning of 'significant') and the reason we don't certify single-engine commercial transports.

Clearly, from the statement issued by Smartwings, the safety culture is missing. Clearly, they are on my no-fly list until they condemn this incident.

Evan, I will make a deal with you. I will refrain from using the word "disdain" if you quit mentioning your so-called "no-fly list". If for no other reason than it's entirely irrelevant. I mean, do you mean to tell me that you were just about to run out and book a ticket on Smartwings, if only this hadn't happened?

Evan, I will make a deal with you. I will refrain from using the word "disdain" if you quit mentioning your so-called "no-fly list". If for no other reason than it's entirely irrelevant. I mean, do you mean to tell me that you were just about to run out and book a ticket on Smartwings, if only this hadn't happened?

I probably would have, if I were still living in Prague. I actually had a fairly positive impression of the airline, at least from a safety standpoint. My Prague friends fly them pretty regularly (and also when they were Travel Service). I never had the pleasure and probably never will, now that they've revealed their fearless Czech disregard for caution. I don't mind you using the word 'disdain' to describe my position vis a vis that mindset.

How very boring. I'll make a deal with you ATL: I will respect you as a flight captain if you will respect me as a member of an aviation forum and give up your eerie obsession into my private life, if for no other reason than that it's entirely irrelevant.

I don't think he understands the relevance. Is there a mininum of 'experience' needed to understand the safety issue here? Or would common sense suffice?

It's not about experience, it's more that sometimes it's helpful to know where people's perspectives come from. You have a very pronounced dislike (not to use the other d-word) for the industry in general. I, for one, would be very curious what caused it.